Clarence Hayes joined Westport’s Representative Town Meeting in 2023. He serves on its Long Range Planning, Environment, Transit and IT committees.
He recently retired from a career in information technology. His final position was senior vice president of global networks at Bank of America.
Clarence Hayes
Clarence has 2 daughters and 5 grandchildren (2 are at Kings Highway Elementary School).
An avid amateur naturalist and walker, he is concerned about the future of the planet — and the environment’s effects on Westport.
In May, Clarence wrote an Opinion piece for “06880” on electric cars, hybrids and SUVs in Westport.
It was not very encouraging. Despite a small drop in emissions from 2018 to 2023, it was like trading in your Hummer for a Suburban – a little less polluting, but nothing to brag about.
Today, he addresses greenhouse gas emissions. Clarence writes:
As part of my volunteer work in support of the RTM Long Range Planning Committee, I am analyzing Westport’s greenhouse gas emissions.
This analysis is on emissions generated by home heating. Unfortunately this situation is worse than my previous one. If cars get a “D” on the NetZero report card, home heating gets an “F.” Emissions have gone up.
Even though there has been a strong movement from oil heat to gas, it has been overwhelmed by the massive increase in the size of house
From 2014 to 2024, the percentage of Westport’s total occupied building area heated by oil dropped from 64% to 50%, an encouraging transition of 3.5 million square feet. Oil heat generates roughly 39% more greenhouse gases than natural gas for the same heat energy result. So this represents sizable progress.
However, accompanying this was a total net addition of 3 million more square feet to be heated. So even though all the new living area uses natural gas, the total net new emissions are greater than the reduction from the drop in oil heating.
This 7-bedroom, 8 1/2-bathroom home near Compo Beach is 10,061 square feet. It was built in 2014.
Additionally, there has been only a trivial increase in electric, geothermal or solar assisted heating in the same 10 years, moving from 3.7% of the town total to a mere 4%.
How can we be going backwards?
The answer is obvious. Look around at the enormous white boxes with black windows, popping up all over town. Every renovation or teardown replacement results in a new structure which has at least doubled the living area of the one it replaced.
In the past 3 years, there were 179 teardowns, with an average increase of 222% in size. The average living area went from 2,567 square feet per property to 5,704.
Although the new structures are generally better insulated and sealed than those they replace, the improvements would have to cut energy consumption in half just to get back to the status quo ante.
Efficiency reductions of 30% or more are possible with new structures. Let’s say I have a house with 139 units of GHG emissions using oil to start with. I convert to gas and go down to 100 units.
Now I build bigger and increase the size 222%; we get 222 units of GHG. Then assume a 30% reduction in energy required due to improved seal/insulation in new structures. We drop back to 155 units of GHG – which is more than the 139 units of GHG we started with.
These results are based on the Westport Grand List at the end of 2014, and as of February 2024.
Westport is making zero progress on its “NetZero 2050” objective.
The people with the largest GHG emissions in the world are those who can most easily make a meaningful contribution. It is much less impactful on one’s quality of life to make a 3 tons per person reduction, if your starting point is 28 (like Westport, -10.7%), as opposed to say 15 (like Bridgeport, -20%), or 7 (like China, -43%).
Much of Westport energy consumption is for show – a big, largely unoccupied house; big, impressive cars; large properties manicured by small armies of landscapers, etc.
If any town can afford to do something for the greater good of the global climate, it is Westport.
(Please contact me at chayes@westportct.gov with any questions on the analysis, or for access to the data.)
(Got an opinion about the environment, education, government, or anything else? “06880” welcomes your input. But remember: We rely on reader support. Please click here to donate. Thanks!)
Clarence knows his stuff. I’m impressed with his analysis.
Wow! The statistics garnered by Clarence are really something; and the effort in doing so, commendable. As to keeping folks from displaying their wealth by building huge houses, good luck with that, sir.
Great article, Clarence, thank you.
Clarence, when your RTM colleagues voted for this net zero initiative a few years ago, the same dynamics as you cite were obviously in play. Everyone, on some level, knew or should have known it would never survive contact with reality.
2 winters ago we re-sided our house and took the opportunity to reinsulate the exterior walls with spray in insulation to replace the 40 year old stuff that had basically disintegrated. Our home heating oil consumption dropped from 8 gallons a day to 6 – a meaningful percentage yes, except that the spray foam is hydrocarbon derived. So apart from a house that is more comfortable and draft free what did we achieve? Certainly there is no financial benefit. Environmental impact- no clue other than maybe a little “feel good” factor.
It’s nice to see that this individual is driving a 1993 BMW when he said that everyone should have an EV car I’m pretty sure he has oil heat as well. Maybe this person can pay for everyone’s upgrade to heat and solar panel and when a wind may potentially a compo beach That would be more prophetic and altruistic, as well as philanthropic
I have an electric heat pump, heating 1450 sf of living space. As I noted in my article on cars in the Spring, my wife and I possess one car – a 22 year old 2002 BMW 325 sedan, bought used. And also I wrote in that article, and believe this to be scientifically correct:
“What you should really do to help the climate:
Keep the old car – or buy a used hybrid or EV.
If you have a gas car in good running condition, don’t get rid of it. Take good care of it and keep it as long as possible.
The manufacture of a new car creates CO2 emissions typically equal to at least 50% of the lifetime tailpipe emissions of the car. The longer you keep it, the greater the amortization of those emissions, and the lower total impact to the atmosphere over time.
I have a 22-year old gas car. I maintain it well, and I only drive locally. Manufacturing a new car creates a huge new injection of CO2, vs. the much smaller repeat incremental CO2 from my driving.
Whenever you do need to buy new, buy the minimum needed: fit it to your real transport needs — and keep it as light as possible. For example:
-The Rivian EV creates 122 gmCO2/mile in “upstream emissions”
– the same as a Volvo SUV hybrid. The Nissan Leaf EV creates only 88 gmCO2/mile in upstream emissions.
-The Rivian weighs 7068 pounds, versus 3509 for a Nissan Leaf – double the emission impact from manufacture.
Clarence speaks truth.
However, what is truth without context?
How does Westport compare to the rest of the country?
How does the US compare to the rest of the world?
How do our buddies in Mainland China and the former Soviet bloc compare to us?
What are the projected demographics (birthrate) and how does it compare?
I would suggest that Westport “chill out” and install bidets and composting toilets in all public restrooms.
Read the whole article for context. At the bottom is a chart for comparison of Westport to the world in terms of per capita emissions. In terms of population growth, China and former Soviet bloc countries have declining populations, and much lower per capita emissions. Africa is where major population growth is happening, but their emissions on a per capita basis are the lowest.
Regardless of that context, if someone wants to make a contribution, it starts at home with what is under one’s own control.
Hey, Clarence, I’m on your side I just don’t see it happening any time soon in Westport. When I attended Staples (sporadically) in the 60’s I walked all the way from my house on South Compo rather than ride the school bus. Keep up the good work.
Great article.
I just don’t see only a 30% efficiency reduction with tear downs/new builds. I am presently taking down a 1953 house, 2,574 sf, oil heat with minimal insulation (attic has 6″, nothing in walls or basement ceiling), with low/non SEER rated appliances and replacing it with a 5,200 sf house, R-60 insulation in roof and R-21 in walls, gas heat, and triple pane windows. Heating system will be 98% efficiency gas modulating furnace.
Also, how does you formula reconcile the removal of Mike’s Septic previously on the Post Road with its kilns, fly ash and energy usages compared with the 32 new apartments that were built, 7 of which are affordable.
I don’t think its so one dimensional.
Once again great article.
Roger’s Septic. Westport business and employer for decades. A necessary manufacturer, if not made in Westport will be manufactured elsewhere. or replaced with plastic which may be more damaging to the environment.
Thank’s Mike, Roger’s Septic, and I agree that they will be manufactured elsewhere. But the author is analyzing Westport emissions. If Roger’s Septic ceases to exist in Westport, and was a heavy polluter, how does that relate to a reduction of Westport emissions and how does it effect the grade the author has established.
Excellent article and data which should be a call to action for all of us. Just sending supplies to our southern friends who have been impacted so tragically from the burning of fossil fuels is not enough. Our elected officials and residents must stop buying heating equipment or vehicles that use fossil fuels.
Clarence,
Any thoughts on the design for the new Long Lots Elementary School?
Eliminating emissions in our lifetime is very important. I wish we would have more articles that raise awareness on this topic and provide solutions at the same time. I do not think we are helpless. Westport has the most number of electric cars per capita in Connecticut, and it seems to be on the rise. What I would like to see though is more home builders adopting greener energy because it is much less expensive than retrofits. How can we convince builders to install ground source or air source heat pumps? How can we convince them to have EV charging in the garage? Make the new homes more suitable to install solar panels? Or give an option for buyers to choose induction stoves for better indoor air quality? What could nudge the builders to consider alternatives to their current model? Is this something that Sustainable Westport could tackle?
And the town of Westport can also lead by example. I am very excited that the new Long Lots school building design includes a geothermal and pv system.
By 2050 we won’t have to worry because we will be on fire at that point.
We appreciate Clarence’s continued efforts to highlight where Westporters can individually reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We should all be motivated to take action where we have control—starting with our homes and vehicles. Sustainable Westport’s mission is to inspire, support, and connect residents, organizations, and the Town of Westport in making both small changes and big commitments toward a healthier, more sustainable future.
To address Joe’s question: Sustainable Westport is tackling these issues through education and community engagement. Our website (www.sustainablewestport.org) offers a wealth of resources, under the “Take Action- Residential Energy” section, you can explore topics from deconstruction/remodeling to energy-efficient gadgets to sources of renewable energy. A starting point for everyone is an In Home Energy Assessment (www.sustainablewestport.org/news/in-home-energy-performance-assessment-yes/).
Additionally, our website offers information on transportation, waste, yards and beyond.
Last year, we hosted a three-part speaker series on Residential Energy Efficiency (Solar, Geothermal, Heat Pumps) and we plan to offer another in 2025. When it comes to municipal buildings, we’ve advocated for a Net Zero Long Lots School (providing relevant information to the committee), Why Should Westport Consider Building “Sustainable Schools” (www.sustainablewestport.org/news/why-should-westport-consider-building-sustainable-schools/), and orchestrated a presentation to the BOE on increasing solar at Staples High School.
While Clarence focuses on residential buildings, we must also consider the energy efficiency and heating solutions for municipal buildings and schools. To drive meaningful change, it’s crucial for Westport’s town leaders to make reducing greenhouse gas emissions a top priority.
As an independent non-profit, Sustainable Westport’s impact relies on the community’s willingness to engage. We encourage all Westporters to get involved, share our resources, and recognize that their individual choices and collective voices can make a significant difference.